Скачать 1.77 Mb.
For the reasons explained above, this research tries to find answers to the following questions.
The aim of this research is to investigate the process of innovation in the Scottish food industry, generate as well as test relevant theoretical propositions and articulate a set of policy prescriptions. It also attempts to see if there is an ascertainable pattern to the innovation process carried out by small food companies in Scotland and to explore possibilities of transplanting these processes in presently non-innovative Scottish food companies and beyond. This research thus is prompted by motives extending past intellectual curiosity. It aims not merely to build a theory of a less understood phenomenon but also to explore its potential for a larger social good. As explained in the literature review, this inclination played a role in shaping the research questions for this investigation and thereby influenced the methodological issues for this research.
In order to achieve this goal an attempt is made in this research to understand and explain how small Scottish food companies organisations generate new product ideas, how are these ideas screened or validated and how are they implemented i.e. how the ideas are converted in saleable products. At the same time, it is also explored if process innovation too has been carried out by these businesses and the nature of their activities on this front. Also investigated is the role of determinants of innovation identified in previous research namely, market orientation learning processes, technology policy, cooperative networks, managerial efficiency, pioneering innovative policy orientation, age, size, human resources (particularly innovation potential of people involved with new product development) and financial resources in the success of innovative efforts of these organisations.
The main body of this thesis and its principal conclusions are derived from case studies of eight innovative Scottish food companies using a qualitative rather than quantitative method or, to use a more contemporary vocabulary, deploying an exploratory rather than a confirmatory research approach (Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie, 2003). The conclusion so derived are subsequently attempted to be confirmed through a survey of Scottish companies who have successfully developed new products.
According to Yin, (2003), “A case study is an empirical enquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident”. case studies usually deploy a combination of data collection methods such as ‘archival searches, interviews, questionnaires and observation’ (Eisenhardt, 1989). While quantitative data do sometimes form part of case studies, they are largely qualitative. case studies usually depict an authentic, though summarised record of events, the main players concerned, and other influencing variables, and generally have ‘an institutional focus’ (Rosselle, 1996). As a research strategy, the focus of case studies is unravelling the nature of dynamics present within situations. They are especially valuable when the laboratory type of controls are not feasible and/or ethically unjustified (Miles and Huberman, 1984; Yin, 1994; Remenyi et al., 1998).
Affording a flexible and often an opportunistic research approach is the obvious strength of case studies, it, however, can also turn out to be its chief drawback, specially, if the research process is not very well documented. If, however, the researchers can link the flexibility allowed by the case study research with the classical research cycle of ‘description, explanation and testing’ (Meredith, 1993), they can generate useful insights. As stated above ‘the case study research investigates a contemporary phenomenon in its real life context’ (Yin, 2003), and so as a research strategy, extant theories can always be used as a basis to gain initial understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. Yin (2003) describes three types of case studies:
1. An exploratory case study, which can help the researcher define and sharpen the queries and hypotheses for a later study, which may or may not be a case study
2. A descriptive case study, which provides a comprehensive description of ‘a phenomenon within its context’ and
3. An explanatory case study which espouses a cause-effect relationship or explains how the known events have happened.
Though principal use of case studies in research is to collect data, their main utility is in building and confirming theories (Eisenhardt 1989; Yin, 1994; Westbrook, 1995; Swartz and Boaden, 1997; de Weerd-Nederhof, 2001). case studies, being the chronicles of real activities at a particular point in time, are of immense value in theory construction particularly in exploratory case study research. Here it is necessary to emphasise that theory building includes both new theory construction as well as adaptation of existing theories to explain known but ‘previously unexplained empirical generalisations’ (Brewer and Hunter, 1989). Zonabend (1992) states that case studies involve critical focus on ‘complexities in observation, reconstruction, and analysis’ of the phenomenon under investigation and include the views of the players in the case under investigation. The notion that even properly executed case studies are not rigorous enough is not true. In reality, case studies are quite difficult to carry out, and the impression that they are a ‘soft’ research option is misleading (Yin, 1984, Patton and Appelbaum, 2003).
case study research makes distinct contributions to our understanding of social, political and economic phenomena and fulfils our desire to know and comprehend complex entities (Patton and Appelbaum, 2003). A properly conducted case study captures the holistic and significant features of real-life events as it deals with a variety of evidence (Yin, 1984)
case studies are often based on a limited number of cases. If, however, the researcher has a good analytical ability to understand the nature and consequences of interaction between various components of the systems and the components themselves, he/she can generalise from few or even a single case reasonably well (Normann, 1984). Yin (1984) points out, when a researcher’s goal is to ‘expand and generalise theories (analytic generalisation) and not to enumerate frequencies (statistical generalisation)’, case study research methods can be very useful. case study research in fact may often discover intricate details of subjects under study, show up crucial relationships between core components and is particularly valuable in absence of any strong theory to depend on (Bozeman and Klein, 1999).
Yin (1994) believes that case studies should be the preferred research strategy when answers to "how" and "why" issues are being sought, when the researcher has no or very little control over the events and a ‘contemporary phenomenon within a real-life context’ is being investigated. Westgren and Zering (1998) argue that case study research is better equipped than survey methods to answer the "whys" and "hows" as it can probe more acutely the conduct and motivation of people than structured surveys. case research has also room for incorporating all relevant factors and an opportunity to portray real-life field practice. Patton and Appelbaum (2003) argue that case study is a valid and reliable method for research in management. They satisfy all core tenets of quality research and inhabit a vital niche in management science.
Though the case study research has distinct merit particularly for exploratory studies, it has been criticised on certain grounds. This criticism should be taken in account, and appropriate precautions should be taken if a meaningful case study is to be conducted. One of the criticism is that case study research lacks rigour, may be biased and contains a possibility that theory generation may be ad-hock and significant test data may be excluded (Amaratunga and Baldry, 2001; Seuring, 2008). Bromley (1986) cites ‘researcher bias’ as one of the limitations of case study research. Becker (1986) similarly believes that lack of objectivity could come from researcher’s feelings for the subjects under investigation. The findings from multiple case studies, though, are believed to be more convincing and robust. Inability of case study to be a basis of conventional ‘scientific generalisation’ too is pointed out (Yin, 1994; Remenyi et al., 1998). In defence of this criticism, however, it is argued that case study research aims at creations of generalisation for theoretical propositions (analytical generalisation) but not generalisations for populations or universes (statistical generalisation). Santos (1999) in this context argues that case studies analyse distinct phenomenon in unique settings and their results are not meant to be applied to settings, which are significantly different from those under investigation. Westbrook (1995) believe that case study research lacks efficiency and may be time-consuming as several visits to a host of locations may be required to understand a phenomenon in requisite detail. Swartz and Boaden (1997) draw attention to the fact that only a small number of cases can be practically undertaken, which renders generalisation difficult. Tendencies to build an all-inclusive theory also sometimes make many case studies invalid (Eisenhardt, 1989). Too much description and too little analysis is also cited in this context (Simon et al, 1996). In multiple case studies sometimes a significant number of variables may differ from case to case and no generalised conclusions can be drawn (Westbrook, 1995). There is no guarantee that the informants will reveal the true information, as there can be a large number of reasons for them to be less than forthright (Seuring, 2008)
The following precautions were taken to minimise the impact of above-mentioned drawbacks on the validly of this research:
184.108.40.206Identification of literature gap
This research started with a review of literature on business innovation particularly small business innovation. From this review, a significant gap in the literature became obvious. It was apparent that the previous work in business innovation is largely focused on innovation in high-tech enterprises and the research on low-tech industries is virtually non-existent. A concurrent review of information on Scottish economy, on the other hand, revealed that the Scottish economy is composed predominantly of low-tech enterprises. This led to the conclusion that a work on innovation in low-tech enterprises would fill a significant gap in literature on business innovation and at the same time would have high practical utility in Scotland. It was thus decided to investigate innovation in one of the low-tech Scottish industries. This is how a gap in literature and the ground realities of Scottish economy together shaped the theme of this investigation.
As stated, from a review of literature on small business innovation and the study of composition of Scottish economy, objective of this research was derived and the theme of innovation in low-tech Scottish enterprises was picked up. As one of the supervisors of this research, Mr. Aidan Craig has significant experience of working in the Scottish food industry as well as good contacts therein, amongst the low-tech Scottish industries; it was decided to investigate the Scottish food industry. The research objective to generate a theory of innovation in low-tech enterprises and produce prescriptive suggestions to make such enterprises more innovative, thus incorporated Scottish food industry as its focus.
220.127.116.11Research approach or the epistemological foundation of work
Like all human conduct, academic research too is based overtly or otherwise, on some philosophical outlook. Neglecting a philosophical perspective, though not necessarily lethal, can acutely impact the value of management research (Amaratunga and Baldry, 2001). An understanding of the philosophical positioning of research helps researchers in identifying diverse research designs and approaches as well as in deciding which one is the most appropriate for their purpose (Easterby-Smith, 1991).
The four paradigms of research methodology on which much of academic research is grounded are positivism, realism, critical theory and constructivism.
The positivist approach, principally a quantitative approach, is based on the belief that a unit of investigation should always be measured objectively and not subjectively. The two chief ramifications of positivist’s approach are independence of researcher from the subject and formulation of hypothesis for testing. Positivism is based on the belief in existence of causal relationship and elemental laws, and usually trims down the investigated entity into smaller and simpler components to facilitate analysis (Easterby-Smith, 1991; Remenyi et al., 1998).
The realistic approach, also referred to as the phenomenological or inductive research, assumes the reality to be ‘holistic and socially constructed’ which cannot be determined objectively. The realist researchers attempt to comprehend and elucidate a phenomenon. They do not seek to discover any external causes or elemental laws (Easterby-Smith, 1991; Remenyi, 1998). Most qualitative techniques are grounded in a realistic methodological paradigm.
Critical theory presumes that all political, economic, social or cultural reality is comprehensible. It visualises investigators and their subjects to be interactively interlinked and assumes that the system of belief of investigators influences their inquiry through a discourse between the researchers and their subjects. It thus is based on the notion that all knowledge is subjective and value-dependent and all research outcomes are influenced by the personal values of the researchers (Riege, 2003).
The constructivist approach to research is based on the assumption of manifold comprehensible realities, based empirically as well as socially in ethereal intellectual outlook of individuals (Riege, 2003). It aims at enhancing the understanding of the uniqueness as well as diversity of constructions that the researchers and their subjects originally hold (Anderson, 1986). The chief constructivist belief is that all knowledge is ‘theory-driven’, independence of researchers from their research subjects or objects is not possible and theory and practice are inter-dependent (Mir and Watson, 2000).
The methods of critical theory as well as constructivism are dialectical. They focus on understanding and reconstructing the points of view originally held by individuals, and try to attain a consensus without being oblivious to new explanations as new basic information emerges and the sophistication in its analysis improves (Guba and Lincoln, 1994).
Often the choice of research methods is shaped by the training, antecedents and ‘epistemological loyalty’ (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005) of the researcher rather than the nature of the research questions. There is a growing realisation that such a parochial approach is not doing any good to the management science (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005) and that research question alone should drive the method used. In this research, therefore the methods used are chosen based on their suitability to answer the research questions, rather than any ‘epistemological loyalty’.
As very little work has been done on innovation in low-tech enterprises and none on innovation in the Scottish food industry, there is an obvious need to understand and explain the phenomena of innovation in low-tech Scottish food industry. An exploratory research approach based on a realist-inductive paradigm, therefore, was most suitable amongst the four explained above as the exploratory qualitative research is considered superior to its deductive quantitative counterpart when there is inadequate prior work in the field and when there is need to build theories rather than test them (Seuring, 2008, Jarrat, 1996). Sterns et al (1998) too support the use of exploratory approach when the researcher’s goal is to extend and generalise theories and not to count frequencies. Churchill and Lewis, (1986) in this context argue that in ‘a field in which the underlying concepts have not been adequately defined’ theory development rather than theory testing should be the principal concern of researchers. As small business innovation is an evolving field, research utilising qualitative methods are likely to be more illuminating (Sexton, 1986; Churchill and Lewis, 1986; Bygrave, 1989 and Aldrich, 1992). Bygrave (1989) argues, “…at the beginnings of a paradigm, inspired induction (or more likely enlightened speculations) applied to exploratory, empirical research may be more useful than deductive reasoning from them”. In the same context, it is pointed out by Churchill and Lewis (1986) that in the absence of theory generation from close empirical examination, that the ‘hypo-deductive approaches’ would prevent the development of requisite understanding of processes, activities and outcomes. The qualitative methods have also been contributing significantly to various areas of management research for a long time (Cassell et al., 2006a, Cassell et al., 2006b), provide the management researcher an array of ‘powerful tools’ (Gummesson, 2000; Cassell and Symon, 2006) and their calibre in ‘understanding phenomenon within their context, uncovering links between concepts and behaviours and generating and refining theory’ is well-appreciated (Bradley et al., 2007).
A realistic inductive strategy, thus, was chosen to carry out this research. To implement this research strategy the case study method was chosen. a postal survey was not considered appropriate for the purpose as such surveys often create lack of clarity about the questions raised, an inadequate response rate and an insufficient control over who the real respondents are (Seuring, 2008). Supplementary questioning as a follow up to pertinent issues is also not possible nor is crosschecking with other available information. Significant insights that can be gained from actual observation and a visit to the workplace are also ruled out.
18.104.22.168case study design
Seuring (2008) insists, “…there are no specific rules to follow when designing and conducting case study research.” Goffin and New (2001), however, show that case study research can be conducted in four phases - initial contact, site visits for data collection, data analysis and post visit contacts. Simon et al (1994) for the purpose, advise a generative research approach, the generation of critical concepts, the exposition of research theme through semi-structured interviews and the data collection by appropriate techniques. Sterns et al (1998) in this context argue that the anticipated case study output affects the research design, the extent of details that is obtained through questioning in the field and the general nature of the case study.
Before the case studies were commenced and initial contact with the respondents was made, a theoretical framework was created to base the case studies on. As Perry (1998) recommends the first act in the process of building a theory from case study research is to extract a prior theory from a review of literature. This approach is used extensively in management research. de Weerd-Nederhof (2001), who conducted a study similar to mine on organisation and management of new product development systems, too used the same approach.
To create a theoretical framework to base the case studies on the literature on business innovation in general and small business innovation in particular was considered. This voluminous literature was arranged in four different stands. These included definition of innovation, taxonomy of innovation, determinants of innovation and the process of innovation. A theoretical framework incorporating these four aspects of business innovation was then prepared. This framework was then made available to the team of three supervisors for comments and suggestions and based on their input, the framework was modified and finalised.
As the basic instrument to conduct the case studies was to be semi-structured interview, in the next phase a set of open-ended questions based on the above-mentioned theoretical framework was distilled. These questions then were sent up to the supervisors and were modified and finalised after their comments and suggestions were received (Appendix 12.1). The most difficult yet crucial part of the process was to create a set of questions reflecting a theoretical framework couched in pure academic language into a set of open-ended questions that lay people can understand.
All but one of eight case studies was carried out at the manufacturing sites of food companies identified. During the fieldwork, semi-structured interviews were conducted of the people responsible for new product development in the case enterprises, deputed by the managing directors of identified companies. Prior to interviewing a brief outline of the research project and its overall objectives was provided to the respondents and they were assured that any information that they will supply would not be divulged without their permission. On each occasion, nearly a day at the site was spent and apart from conducting the semi-structured interviews, a tour of the site was also undertaken to understand how the product development process was being carried out. All but two of the semi-structured interviews were taped on a digital voice recorder and later transcribed verbatim. In case of non-recoded interviews, detailed notes were taken during the interviews.
The raw data thus collocated went into analysis. Analysis included both within case analysis as well cross case comparisons. The insights gained from these two processes were then used to obtain generalised conclusions, which were used to generate broad theoretical propositions as well as policy prescriptions. Miles and Huberman (1984)’s advise on use of devices such as graphs, tables, and diagrams for management and presentation of case study data was employed.
22.214.171.124Rational for multiple case studies
case studies can involve single as well as multiple cases. Multiple cases were used in order to reinforce the conclusions and generate a more robust theory. Hakim (1987) believes that evidence coming from multiple sources makes case study analysis more complete and rounded. Simon et al. (1996) similarly argue that by examining many cases simultaneously the analysis is enriched as issues are compared, contrasted and elaborated. Similarly, Eisenhardt, (1989) believes that robust and well-grounded findings emerge from corroboration of one source of data by the evidence coming from another. Westbrook (1995) in the same context states that multiple case studies provide more generalisable outcomes than those allowed by single cases and multiple cases research has greater value as a theory-building tool. Room for cross-case analysis in multiple case studies is particularly useful in theory construction.
After deciding to conduct multiple case studies, the number of cases to investigate was to be decided. There are no exact norms on optimum number of cases in multiple case studies (Perry, 1998) and it is not easy to ensure whether the number of cases analysed are enough as a basis for generalisation (Swartz and Boaden, 1997). Eisenhardt (1989) in this context advises analysing between four to ten cases. He argues that it is generally quite arduous to build a theory of adequate complexity from less than four cases. On the other hand, more than ten cases generate so much data that analysing it becomes extremely difficult. It was thus tentatively decided to carry out case studies of between five to nine Scottish food companies.
126.96.36.199The control for extraneous factors
As explained in the literature review, the determinants of innovation identified by the previous research can be divided into two groups, the internal determinants of innovation and external determinants of innovation. The internal determinants are, market orientation, learning processes, technology policy, cooperation and networks, managerial efficiency, pioneering innovative policy orientation, age, size, human resources and financial resources. The extraneous factors affecting innovation are of two types; the region specific factors include, society’s attitude towards innovation, headquarter branch ratio (in case of Transnational corporations), potential for spin-off within the existing companies, the regional level of entrepreneurship, the regional industrial policy, regional economic performance and the strength and prevalence of local research networks. The region specific factors include competition in the industry, the level of industrial concentration and barriers to entry in the industry. In order to ensure that these extraneous factors did not interfere with the study of firm specific innovation influencing factors, only businesses from Scotland are included in the case study sample. This controlled the regional extraneous factors whereas to control for industry specific extraneous factors, companies only in the food industries were included. This is how the design of this research ensured that all extraneous factors were controlled for.